Defence says Saddam's verdict a mockery of justice

[cal04]

The sentencing of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on Sunday to death by hanging after a U.S.-sponsored Iraqi court convicted him for crimes against humanity was a mockery of justice, his defence team said.

"This is a mockery of justice and a judgement that comes from a sham and illegal court created by the U.S. occupation that cannot ever provide a fair trial," lawyer Bushra al-Khalil, told Reuters in Amman where the defence team is based.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L05245707.htm

[Birthmark]

1. Aw, the poor little butcher

I so don't feel sorry for Saddam.

[Xipe Totec]

5. Don't feel sorry for Saddam

feel sorry for the rape of lady justice.

Passing sentence in Iraq has now become a capital offense. The judge who sentenced Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the head of Iraq's former Revolutionary Court, has signed his own admission of guilt and simultaneously established the precedent by which he himself will be tried, convicted, and hanged.

The Bush administration is doing to Saddam, and to the people of Iraq, what they accused Saddam of doing.

And they are doing it through a puppet government and a kangaroo court. This reeks with irony.

[Richard Steele]

6. Exactly right, and very well stated. nm

[Birthmark]

7. "Rape"is a bit strong, don't you think?

There is no doubt that Saddam is guilty. At worst, lady justice was groped, not raped. No, that's not good. But that is a separate issue in this case and can be dealt with later. And probably will be.

[Xipe Totec]

10. We need to decide what kind of justice we believe in

Do we believe in common law - innocent until proven guilty; burden of proof on prosecution; habeas corpus.

or Napoleonic law - guilty until proven innocent; burden of proof on defendant; no habeas corpus.

It's ok to go for Napoleonic law, but we'll need to tweak the constitution a little bit. The 'pugs have given us a running start by blowing habeas corpus away.

On the contrary, "Rape" is not a strong enough word to describe what this administration has done in Iraq.

But I certainly recognize your right to disagree.

:dem:

[wakeme2008]

8. Lets see the 140 ppl tried to kill Saddam and were caught, had a trial and

executed... That is more than was given the 600,000 ppl Bush had killed in Iraq.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

2. So what would be a fair verdict?

Perhaps hanging Saddam -- with a lollipop in his mouth?

[rpannier]

4. I think forcing him to write

10,000 times
"I'm Sorry for murdering over 100,000 people and will promise not to do it again." should about cover it.

As I noted in an earlier post, the fairness of the trial should be the only question here. If it was fair then "too f**king bad" If it was rigged then that's a legitimate thing to debate.

I would point out that I'm guessing had Hitler gone to Nuremburg the verdict probably would have been a forgone conclusion.

[rpannier]

3. I shed no tears for Saddam

he was a ruthless tyrant who murdered thousands. It's irrelevant whether he was our friend then, whether he got the weapons he used from us on those people, etc.
The fact is hundreds of thousands are dead and he is responsible. He made those decisions himself and thus is more than likely going to suffer the consquences of his actions.

Having said that, there is the issue of the fairness of the trial. I get my feeds here in Korea from CNN-International, Hong Kong TV, KBS and MBC here in Korea. Mosy of the reporters at the trial commented that they thought the trial was within the rules of international law -- although one reporter at KBS commented that reporters who questioned the Courts actions were barred from access to anything related to the trial.

When you have someone as despicable as Saddam Hussein is (and he is, was and always will be a son-of-a-bitch), the bar for a fair trial should always be as high as possible. If you're not willing to cut corners on the trial of Sadaam, you're probably not going to cut corners on the trial of other lesser people.

1. The judge in the trial came from a community that Sadaam persecuted heavily.
2. The Court would remove the attorneys for the defendants and replace them with Court appointed attorneys. While this may or may not be common around the world is irrelevant.
3. Was the verdict pre-determined. On that fact, almost no one in Iraq or outside of Iraq thinks that it wasn't determined before the trial.

Sadaam is irrelevant in this discussion. The process is what is relevant.

[RC]

9. How many reading or posting on this thread would be of the

same mind if george walker bu$h were to be tried by the same set of rules Saddam was?
i.e., in a court controlled by an foreign occupying force here in this country...
It is not outside the realm of possibility.

Saddam should have been turned over to the World Court. But that precedent could not be allowed by the bu$h cabal as that would strengthen the threat to our criminal administration for being tried there also.

This country is way too blood thirsty for the good of the world. Karma is gonna be a hard bitch.